Ok, I read most of this (trying to skip over the grade-school-level political statements), and admittedly without managing to read it all, I will weigh in with some perspectives from political science and from CASAA.
1. As at least one reply noted, about 95% of what matters in a legislative election is the letter after the name of the candidate. Anyone who votes for the person rather than the party (again, for legislative elections) is making a big mistake because most important matters will be decided by the party and the individuals are effectively required to vote as a block for such matters. In cases where you see some members "voting their conscience" against their party, you will notice that it is not occurring on issues that are both major and where the vote can make a difference (i.e., the party leaders allow them to vote their conscience when it does not matter for the outcome).
2. However, there is still that 5% (probably less than that at the national level). That includes things like vaping and THR in general. The parties would probably not enforce whip discipline on such issues if they ever came to a vote, and certainly do not force anyone to be vocal about them.
3. Having just one election -- once, anywhere -- look like it might have turned on the vaping/THR vote would be HUGE. It would send a signal that there are no votes to be won by being anti-THR, but there are votes to be lost, and there will be more in the future. Those not in safe seats (which is only a few at the national level but more at the state level) would think twice about being openly anti-THR if that happened just once.
4. No one should worry about this election mattering for any other reason. While I have not looked at the latest polls for NM, it seems like a safe bet that it will be solidly D no matter which way this one election goes.
5. Greg is all about protecting vaping. Any suggestion otherwise shows that someone knows nothing of his work. That said, I think it is extremely unfortunate that he tied himself to someone like Heartland, and it does hurt his credibility among many. This is not just because of their politics and who pulls their strings, but because of their penchant for junk science. (Needless to say, Greg is well aware that I feel that way.)
6. CASAA is extremely limited (by our corporate status) in terms of what we can do in candidate elections. But it is not quite zero. Nonetheless, we are not thrilled about the idea of getting involved in them (for many of the reasons illustrated here), and may decide to never do so. The organization has no position on this. However, I think it is safe to say that most of the leadership, as people, are cheering for Greg on this.
7. Cluster-analysis type research shows that left-vs-right in American politics basically describes two dimensions of voting patterns, fiscal policy and militancy. It is not the case that these necessarily run together, but it happens that they do quite strongly. Anti-harm-reduction and behavioral freedom does not really fall on either of these spectra, and so is not properly described as a left-right issue. Indeed, those split quite remarkably, notably including opponents of harm reduction for sex and most drugs clustering among the right and opponents of harm reduction for tobacco clustering among the left. The reason they tend to cluster is the "my team vs. your team" tendencies created by the two-party system (which is the inevitable result of the system of government created in the Constitution).
8. It is certainly the case that anti-THR cluster among the left, due to various historical accidents. This means that the more the Rs are in power, the less anti-THR there will be. As noted by many posters, this is hardly the most important implication of which party is in power, but there is no doubt it is an implication.
9. However, because there is no natural reason that anti-THR should be an issue of the left (or anyone), it ought to be possible to change that. That is, it would not be possible to go after a single candidate for being, say, in favor of cutting taxes on the rich and make Rs shy of trying to cut taxes on the rich. That is a (perhaps the) core goal of the party and voting based on that issue is simply voting for or against the party. But defeating someone in an election because of their stand on ecigs could cause the D party to consider that there is a serious downside of being associated with anti-THR.
Our monthly take-home is probably what he carries in his pocket, to give the Great Unwashed as tips. 
